Revay v. Cleveland State University
Ohio Court of Claims
2003 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 74 (2003)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
George Revay (plaintiff) was a student at Cleveland State University (defendant). Revay had attended the university for several years and had completed over 200 hours of class credit. Revay needed an additional 47 credit hours to be awarded a degree. In March 2001, Revay was notified that he had been awarded financial aid of $500 for the summer semester. The letter from the university granting the financial-aid award specifically reserved the right of the university to adjust any financial-aid award based on eligibility and enrollment. During the summer of 2001, Revay enrolled in one class. In August 2001, the university notified Revay that the university was revoking his $500 aid award for the summer of 2001 because Revay did not meet the guidelines for satisfactory academic progress (SAP). The SAP guidelines in the university’s catalogs and website specified that undergraduate students could not complete more than 192 credit hours to be eligible for financial aid. Revay petitioned the university to reinstate his financial aid, but Revay’s petition was denied. Revay filed a lawsuit against the university, alleging that the university had committed fraud and should be estopped from revoking Revay’s financial-aid award.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.